Sony a7 III dynamic range and high ISO improve over its predecessor

Sony recently announced the a7 III, a comparatively affordable full frame mirrorless camera that incorporates a host of advanced features derived from the a9 and a7R III. The combination of price point and feature set makes it attractive to both enthusiasts and pros, particularly those looking to get into full frame or perhaps even make the switch to mirrorless. While we've already shot quite a bit with it and offered our thoughts on the camera as a whole, we hadn't had a chance to take a deep dive into its image quality performance.

And we know many of you are wondering: what's the dynamic range like?The high ISO performance?

Let's take a look.

Low light (high ISO) performance

a7 III

ISO 25,600

a7R III

ISO 25,600

a7 II

ISO 25,600

Low light performance has improved markedly over the a7 II, putting it more or less in-line with the a7R III (and therefore a9) when images are viewed at the same size (we've downsized the a7R III shot to 24MP). These are 100% crops here (if you're viewing on a smartphone or Retina / 4K display, see this footnote* below). Roll over the captions, or click on any of the images to view our full studio scene images for each camera.

This is a great result, but also comes as no surprise: noise performance is broadly determined by a combination of sensor size and technology, and we've recently seen some significant improvements to sensor technology made by Sony. In particular, the backside-illuminated (BSI) and dual gain architecture of most recent Sony sensors helps squeeze every last bit of performance out of these already low noise imaging chips. Furthermore, the original a7 and a7 II lagged in high ISO performance, often failing to surpass the best APS-C sensors.

Dynamic range vs. the a7R III

The a7 III more or less matches the base ISO dynamic range of the a7R III, when both are viewed at common size (we've normalized all our graphs to 8MP). That means both cameras will give you similar ability to make use of (brighten) shadows in Raw files if you want to show a wider dynamic range than shown with the default tone curve. And as long as you're shooting uncompressed Raw, performance is no different whether you're shooting Single or Continuous drive.

In numbers, that's 14.6 EV and 14.8 EV for the a7 III and a7R III, respectively, which falls within our margin of error. You might see a difference in extreme pushes or exposure adjustments, but it's not likely to be photographically relevant.

a7 III (orange) vs. a7R III (blue). There's a slight chance you might notice the 0.2 EV advantage of the a7R III at base ISO or the 0.3 EV advantage of the a7 III at higher ISOs, but we doubt it. As our test scene images show, the two cameras look very similar when viewed at the same output size.

Note the jump in dynamic range at ISO 640 for both cameras. That's essentially the camera's second 'base' ISO, where the second stage of the dual-gain architecture kicks in. At ISOs 640 and above, most recent Sony sensors use a higher gain mode that essentially amplifies the signal at the pixel-level to get it above the (already pretty low) noise floor.** In laymen's terms, that just means 'more picture, less noise', particularly in shadows – hence the increase in dynamic range.

Our analysis shows the a7 III to just edge out the a7R III at these higher ISOs, albeit only by about 0.3 EV (which happens to be right around our margin of error). You might see this in the deepest shadows – in fact, if you look very closely at the darkest patch in our ISO 25,600 rollover above, you can kind of see a tad bit less noise in the a7 III, but is that photographically relevant? Up to you.

... but it shows a marked improvement over its predecessor

While base ISO dynamic range remains the same as its predecessor, the dual-gain design brings a marked improvement at high ISO. Shadows at high ISO will be notably cleaner on the a7 III, and that's before you consider the better overall high ISO performance – even in brighter tones – likely due to either a more efficient sensor or lower upstream read noise.

Compared with the a7 II (green), the a7 III (orange) shows much better dynamic range (at least 1.6 EV) at higher ISOs. Also, whereas you can see noise reduction being applied to the a7 II's Raw at 25,600, it doesn't kick in until ISO 64,000 (beyond the graph) on the Mark III.

Compressed continuous drive performance

If you shoot compressed Raw, the camera drops to 12-bit sensor readout in continuous drive modes. This negatively impacts dynamic range, dropping 1.4 EV at base ISO and roughly 1 EV at ISO 640. Dynamic range catches up at higher ISOs, though never quite matches the performance of 14-bit readout. Even at ISO 6400, 12-bit files are roughly 0.4 EV behind - though this is unlikely to significantly impact your photography. The differences at lower ISOs and at ISO 640, on the other hand, you might notice in more extreme pushes.

a7 III Uncompressed (orange) vs. Compressed 12-bit (light orange) performance. We're not sure about the jumps at ISO 160 and 800, but for the most part there's a drop in dynamic range at lower ISOs that more or less evens out at the higher ISOs.

In Single drive mode, compressed Raw continues to use 14-bit sensor readout, so measured roughly the same dynamic range as Uncompressed (it dropped 0.1 EV, but that's within our margin of error).

And if you're confused about when the camera drops to 12-bit – which is the only time you'd see these drops in DR – the only combination that diverges from 14-bit is when you shoot compressed Raw in (any) continuous drive mode. All other combinations of Mechanical or Electronic shutter, drive mode or Raw type are 14-bit.

vs. a7R II

We threw this one in here because the a7 III and a7R II are currently being sold for roughly similar price (the latter is $400 more expensive), so we're aware of some discussion about choosing between the two. You're unlikely to notice our measured 0.2 EV higher base ISO dynamic range of the a7 III, but you might notice the 0.5 EV advantage at ISO 640. At higher ISOs the cameras even out.

Realistically though, there's not much difference between these cameras.

a7 III (orange) vs a7R II (red) dynamic range. You might notice the 0.5 EV advantage of the a7 III at ISO 640, but for the most part performance is similar.

ISO-invariance

Due to the dual-gain architecture, there are two 'ISO-invariant' ranges: ISO 100-500, and ISO 640-51,200. This means that if your midtone exposure demands ISO 400 but you're worried about clipping highlights, you're better off keeping your exposure settings the same but dialing the camera back to ISO 100 and then selectively brightening the Raw later. This affords you 2 EV extra highlight headroom, with no extra noise in shadows or midtones. If on the other hand your midtone exposure demands ISO 6400, you're better off keeping the same shutter speed and aperture and dialing the ISO down to ISO 640, affording you 3.3 EV extra highlight headroom at no noise cost.

Wait, does this mean I should shoot ISO 640 instead of 320?

No. Not necessarily.

If you have enough light to expose ISOs 200-500 correctly, you should use those ISOs. For example, say you can set a shutter speed and aperture to expose ISO 320 properly. You should not rather choose ISO 640 and shorten your exposure (to preserve highlights that the higher amplification of ISO 640 might clip). That would mean lower overall signal:noise ratio due to increased photon shot noise contribution, and would essentially have the same overall effect of shooting with a smaller (in this example: APS-C) sized sensor.

Recall that dynamic range is not everything, and generally the more light you collect, the better your image. Bill Claff's 'Photographic Dynamic Range' data for the a7R III, which uses a higher threshold for 'acceptable noise in shadows' and therefore considers total light captured more than our measurements, shows that ISO 100-400 outperform ISO 640 and higher. Dual-gain boosts low light performance, and shouldn't affect your exposure decisions any differently, other than perhaps biasing toward ISO 640 rather than 500 in low light.

Summary

We've summarized our results in numbers in the table below.

ISO 100 (24MP)

ISO 100 (8MP)

ISO 640 (24MP)

ISO 640 (8MP)

a7 III

13.8 EV

14.6 EV

13.4 EV

14.2 EV

a7 III (compressed 12-bit)

12.4 EV

13.2 EV

12.3 EV

13.2 EV

a7 II

13.9 EV

14.7 EV

11.8 EV

12.6 EV

a7R III

14 EV

14.8 EV

13.1 EV

13.9 EV

a7R II

13.6 EV

14.4 EV

12.9 EV

13.7 EV

a9

12.6 EV

13.4 EV

12.4 EV

13.2 EV

So what's the take-away? The a7 III's image quality more or less matches what we've come to expect from modern, well-performing full-frame sensors. There's really not much difference between the a7 III, the a7R III, the a7R II, or the Nikon D850 for that matter.

But if you're coming from one of the original a7 cameras, you'll notice the dramatic increase in low light performance. The a7 III bests its predecessors both in dynamic range and general noise performance at higher ISOs, thanks to a number of sensor improvements (efficiency, BSI, dual-gain). Interestingly, the a7 III, which we'd imagine shares a similar sensor to the a9 minus the stacked design, offers roughly 1 EV more dynamic range than that camera at ISOs 100 and 640 (the cameras even out at the highest ISOs). General noise performance of the a9 - if you're not pushing your files - is similar though.

The a7 III's image quality more or less matches what we've come to expect from modern, well-performing full-frame sensors

The a7 III offers great image quality performance at an affordable price point. That said, it's not image quality that sets this camera apart from its contemporaries but, rather, its significant other capabilities like autofocus, silent shooting, video and a number of other things we'll be delving into in our full review.

* Retina & smartphone optimized 100% crops:

a7 III

ISO 25,600

a7R III

ISO 25,600

a7 II

ISO 25,600

** Technically speaking, it's not exactly more amplification. Rather, the sensor switches to a different circuit within the pixel that has different capacitance at the floating diffusion node. This essentially generates a larger voltage swing (signal) per photoelectron captured, which means the signal - your picture - is less affected by the noise floor of the sensor and electronics.

Sure, die hard astrophotographers can't accept the "star eater", but they also need cameras with good near infrared (Hydrogen alpha) sensitivity, which only specialized cameras offer. And many will go cooled, so they need a specialized camera anyway.

For us, who take nice night sky photos and do some deep sky photos now and then, I don't think the "star eater" should make much difference. At least I live very well with the A7rIII, which does not have that much apetite for the faintest stars.

i wouldn't call it bad corporate behaviourbut accepting limitations of trying to please particular needs of a particular segment expectation, while sacrificing at the expense of the other

namely:in order to squeeze higher hi-cont speed fps shooting, with its limited processing speeds, it had to resort to much in-camera "simplified" NR+compression together, to keep image data-sizes minimal (for faster record times; shorter buffer clearing wait times), at the expense of tossing data (the fainter stars) and for anyone shooting RAW+JPEG, must be using only smaller lower IQ "fine" jpeg, and forgoing with larger better IQ "extra fine" jpeg

@9VIII I agree that they should { if possible } allow for the turning off or on of the "feature" . However I suspect that the group impacted by it is very small namely those do astrophotography of a more scientific nature. For the far more common milky way scenic type of shooter it is a non-issue . And as mentioned above a lot of serious astrophotographers take it very seriously indeed. Still if it is just a software thing they should make it available

every PR new product release venue, is a realistic "random sample" (impartial = not rigged) ... and legitimately serve as "real world encounter" (albeit focusing on certain scenes, whether indoor, outdoor, studio lighting or strobes, or just ambient lighting)

in the Sony A7III case, two venues, one in USA (Vegas) and one in UKthe weird fx seen with harsh lighting (natural or artificial-staged)means real world samplings encounters very real camera sensor issues

it has become so predictable, Sony sensors suffer a peculiar look, no matter what kind of lens is used, OEM Sony, or non-Sony

@ PhozoKozmos: You also have to look at how much/little flaws will affect the image (stripes are isolated to a very small area with extreme backlight), while problems like low dynamic range, banding, mirror vibration, etc. (not Sony) will affect all images, and the full sensor area.

just like daytime sunny day skylit sunshadows "seem extreme" (=not really)many forget that in well lit rooms or spaces with an extra spotlight on backlit subjects have available room/space well-lit shadows, which "seem extreme" (=not really)

even if one has "one spot light only" all reflections off of surroundings will light the spotlightshadows

this is why WE can see shadow details with NO problemslikewise camera sensors

I am interested too. With the A7rIII the ' star eater' effect of the spatial filtering seems to be reduced compared to the previous model, so this camera performs pretty well for astrophoto, also deep sky photography. Quantum efficiency is excellent, close to 60%! For real world nightscapes, like Miky way shots and aurora photography, the A7rIII 'star eater' can be seen as a no-issue.

@Magnar W nope, i need a camera that is alround. sony is good for street photography (size/quality) and video. the Nikon beats it pretty much everywhere else. the stareating issue is a known issue and im not sure if its solved or they slightly sort almost fixed it. its cause by the reducing of noise.

@Magnar W'I think you have to update your knowledge on Sony cameras'It must be very difficult for people with the rapid turnover of these cameras to find the time when Sony have actually managed to get one that works in a robust time tested way. Then when will the new problems come to light on the latest model in this experimental churn?It is good what Sony are doing in many ways but their hold over the camera market in many key areas is a bit worrying.

@ Keep Calm: Is there a problem with that? You decide yourself when you want to upgrade your camera. I had my first Sony FF mirrorless almost five years before upgrading, using it almost daily, also for paid work, and this camera still works as great as it did when it was new.

When upgrading, much is about the same from previous cameras, and things like better sensor and better autofocus is just welcome. Or don't you think one can learn a camera to know from daily use over many years?

@pantunes. your missing the point. right now we are in a transition from DSLR to mirrorless. but as it stand DSLR is still outselling mirorless in unites produced and shipped. i expect a speedup in this fase when canon and nikon release their mirrorless version. but when i look at pro-shooters i still see the majority shooting DSLR's canon/nikon.

@Rob40 you're missing the point... Outselling doesn't mean anything regarding the quality of the system. If a pro photographer has had canon cameras for 40years, he's not gonna change just because sony or fuji have a better camera.

Nikon shooters didn't change to canon even when they only had 12mp and canon was at 24mp. Canon shooters didn't change when they had 24mp and nikon had 36 and great iso. And I'm sure that many won't change to a mirrorless even if canon and nikon present one.

Right now you're looking back... You're looking at photographers with 40years experience and seeing what they do. But, if you're smart, you'll look ahead. You'll see what the new kids on the block are doing. You'll see many of the new pros going mirrorless.

@pantunes. you have two types of photographers, 1. gearheads that drool over stats. 2. photographers that take pics and try to get better at their skill/job. the sony sensor is slightly better on the benchmark in lab environment. but nikon/canon have better and wider lens options. its proven tech. their menu is amazing compared to sony. their build is much better than sony. the ecosystem is wider, bigger and there is more experience. there is a reason why nikon and canon dominate the pro market, because there is more to a camera and photography then just a sensor. but DSLR didnt end the film shooters, computers didnt end type writers and CD's didnt end records. what i am really looking forward to is what will happen when canon and nikon release their mirror less system. if they can make it work so you can use your old glass on their new camera's then they will kill sony. i would only buy sony for the video options, for all others, i will stay with nikon, cause it rocks,.

@ Rob40: If Canon and Nikon launches mirrorless systems, they have to start on scratch with a new mount and shorter register distance. Then they will be the newcomers with limited lens selection, since adapted lenses are not part of the ecosystem, according to your logics. Then Sony will be the large system that every pro should go for ... also, you completely forgot that modern digital cameras are not the continuation of mechanical cameras, but highly specialized electronic product. And Nikon don't even make sensors ...

Rob40, there are two types of photographers. 1. Brand loyalists that would follow their brand even if the equipment doesn't work. 2. Photographers that see cameras as tools and use what's best.

Sony mirrorless cameras just work a lot better than dslr in many fields. I'm a professional fashion and commercial photographer. I had canon. Sony simply works better. I get a much bigger keeper rate at wide apertures with sony. Eye-af with AFC is not a stat.

Canon and nikon have many more lenses, but I don't care about the 90TS, the 60macro, the 200 2,8, etc. Sony already has all the lenses I used when I had canon.

You're not looking at it from a real photographers point of view. I need a camera that can make my work faster and better. Sony uses technology to help me be faster. Shooting e-com with face detection allows me to put the camera on a tripod and be done. With canon, I would have to chase the models to get them on the focus point. Sony is a smarter tool.

@pantunes. i agree with photographer 2. thats pretty much what i said. sony is a great mirrorless camera but they do not make lenses. they just stick their label on it like Zeis.. (didnt check that fact). and i expect nikon to make an adapter that will help use old lenses on their new mirrorless system. dont forget the market share they have. if they just go F-it and dont make old lenses work on their new system that could potentially kill them. and problem with sony is they dont have a 500-600 or even 800mm lens. i do agree on your fashoin and portrait work. that is what makes me unsure. do i buy a sony 7r3 or do i buy a D850 or even wait for the mirrorless system. i dont think they will introduce a pro FF body that isnt equal to the D850. with their background and knowledge it should rock. they have to to get a foot on ground in the mirrorless market and dont forget they do high end gear too in industrial field. sony doesnt do that

@Rob40, sony has been doing broadcast tv cameras for years, Sony does cinema cameras, field monitors, etc, etc, etc. The experience sony has with image puts nikon to shame.

Nikon tried the mirrorless world and failed with the Nikon1. And don't forget the adapter that didn't do AF with lots of old nikon lenses. If you put the D850 in live view, does the AF come even close to the sony mirrorless cameras? And from all that, you expect nikon to do a great mirrorless camera? I'm not saying it won't, but there's no indication they will...

Sony doesn't have 500mm, 600mm, 800mm, but what's the percentage of photographers that use those lenses? Sports and wild life. That's it?! I know that sport photographers are the ones that are always on TV, but look around. How many images do you see everyday in ads on facebook, magazines, outdoors, etc that were made with the lenses that sony already has on the lineup?

@pantunes like zeis lenses. i use a 500mm every day and i really mean every day. i would love to have a 600mm prime. but here is the problem. each job has its tool. sony cant compete in some areas like nikon doenst do a good job in others. im unsure if i should buy a D850 or wait a little for their mirrorless or buy a sony. i notice that sony isnt selling very well for such a great camera. nor does it win prices like the nikon D850 does. https://www.nikon.com/news/2018/0409_award_01.htmbut i do feel that hte future is mirrorless. doing a shoot in 46mpx at 30 fps with a 400-500mm sports lens is closer then we might think. nikon is adapting to the changing market same like canon is doing. sony beat them by being the first one. but being first of the block doesnt mean you will finish first. and sony has had its failures too. nikon didnt replace their board of directors for no reason. not everything a company does is always a succes. you learn from your failures not your successes.

@Rob40 fstoppers considered the A9 camera of the year, DPR considered the A7RIII the camera of the year tied with the d850, times considered the A7RIII the mirrorless of the year, etc. Sony has won lots of awards. But honestly, that is insignificant. They are tools and they have to do your job.

And sony isn't selling? Sony had virtually no users 10 years ago. Now they are stepping on Nikon's toes in the full frame market. Nikon has 70 years of cameras.

This isn't a race. Doesn't matter who does the ultimate mirrorless camera in 20 years. What matters is what camera is available now. If nikon does a better mirrorless in 10years, I'll change my camera and that's it. But right now, sony is doing amazing cameras that can do the job better than any drsl.

For you, if you use a 500mm everyday, sony isn't an option unless you use adapters. But unless nikon keeps the same mount, you may need to use adapters anyway...

@pantunes and then there is the fact that an adapter doesnt help with AF on a sony body. and im assuming nikon will work. but its simpeler then that. i have needs. nikon covers my needs. if i buy a D850 im covered in my needs for the next couple of years until something comes along that is so revolutionary that i need to upgrade to a nikon Dwhat ever or i upgrade to a sony/canon what ever. bottom line, it shoots sharp images and covers my needs. i can use my lenses on my D850 so i should be good. even doh a sony fits in my handbag i will still prefer a handfull of D850

@Rob40, I would assume the nikon adapter for the nikon J series would work too, but it didn't with many lenses... :\ So, good luck...

You're making this about what you need and what you have, and not about the qualities or flaws of the camera, and that explains the numbers.

Why isn't sony selling more? It's not because the product isn't good. It's because, just like you, many photographers don't want to change even if the other systems are better. They have money invested and they don't want to loose money changing. And that's valid for everyone.

@magnar W, evidently they are. @pantunes. i believe everybody should have the freedom to be wrong as part of learning. only that way you grow. this feels a lot a like a fanboy defending its sony system against proven tech. NASA bought Nikon because its proven tech. they didnt buy sony even doh they had all those features and it saves space and weight (see money). mirrorles has to develop much more. at this time it part of evolution, not revolution. you might say it is in its infancy fase,. still crying, kicking and screaming at the DSLRs and it wants to play too. DSLRs are dependable, proven tech that always work and people buy when it really has to work. (battery life, LOL). thats why Pro's buy nikon, pro-consumers buy Canon and apple-fans buy sony. i heard a rumor that sony is going to sell their camera's in different colors so it matches the iphone's. :-) (grinn,.)

@magnar W. i know, was laughing when i wrote it. but regarding autofocus, https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4000816220/nikon-d850-vs-sony-a7r-iii-which-is-best?slide=5feels like for portrait sony is stronger (slightly) on that. on non people (sports/wildlife/landscape) nikon is stronger. feels like when its not moving buy sony, when it is moving buy nikon. oh and there is canon and other brands,. to be honest. im seriously considering buying sony a7r3 for street and sorts photography and for my landscape and wildlife D850. sony is so strong that its not clear cut anymore what is the best choice. either way, i dont think you can make a wrong choice,. but with sony i would have to buy new lenses again,. and there is brand loyalty. what if the nikon mirrorles is on par with the sony mirrorles. ?

Rob40: Ever heard about or tried A9 tracking autofocus. Tried the new A7rIII for action? What about eye focus when portraiting people on the move? Do you know what on-sensor phase detection combined with on-sensor contrast focus can do when we talk tracking about speed and precision? Nikon is not even close. And Nikon lenses even need to be calibrated. Isn't that really old fashioned?

@magnar W, yeah saw the video, it didnt work very well. dpreview came to the same conclusion in the link i posted above. old as in proven tech. you are starting to making it into a "mine is bigger then yours" discussion. sony isnt the best in everything and all, and not the final awnser in all you might need as a photographer. there is a reason why NASA bought nikon and has done so for decades. i shoot and own canon and nikon, maybe sony. it has its limitations. no build in timelapse, no focusstacking, small child like buttons for those with small hands and it doesnt have a native lens offering above 400mm and then there is battery life. omg,. 500 clicks,. nikon D850 does 1900 on 1 battery, 5500 when attaching a grip. the nikon D850 is gods gift to the photographer,it even comes in a gold print box,.OMG.

@magnar W, the adapter Commlite CM-ENF-E1 PRO V06 Lens Mount Adapter. works with AF nikon lenses and sony. i checked lens offering from sony, its a laugh. not even a 200mm F2, no 300mm, and prices of a lens is just crazy. canon have the best range of affordable lenses, then nikon and sony,. they are nuts. regarding missing EYE focus,. check jarad polands video van 3 days ago,. ill wait until they release a A7r4 at the end of the year,.

Rob40: You are for sure desperately trying to tell us that you think (your) Nikon cameras are ok! Lol!

You know, most higher end cameras today are capable of more than most photographers really need. And photographers get what they think will do the job, no matter brand and what NASA is using (they use more than one brand, by the way, even Sony mirrorles FF is listed).

The hard and brutal truth is: There is nothing such as "best" camera or "best brand"! The luck is that there are many great cameras! And this is the best part for us photographers - we have choises! ;-)

Manufacturers do not comply with the ISO standard. Newer cameras of the same manufacturer tend to have slightly less actual ISO at the same ISO settings to make the newer camera look better at the same ISO setting. Also different manufacturers might have different actual ISO. To future proof measurements and make them comparable to other brands we should measure the provided brightness at each ISO setting.Also interesting does the shift of ISO setting change at the dual gain breakpoint?

The ISO rating does not matter. It has zero relevance to actual photography. What matters is the image quality, or noise level, when the camera is given a certain amount of light.

That's why in our studio scene we always give every camera the same amount of total scene light at any given manufacturer ISO setting. This means that whenever you're comparing ISO X on one camera to ISO X on the camera, no matter how the manufacturer rated their ISO, you are comparing like for like. Both cameras are working with the same amount of light.

In fact, it's quite likely that in the future our reviews and measurements won't even talk about ISO numbers and, instead, only report on image quality at certain light levels.

Ultimately, that's what matters, not whether some manufacturer is 'lying' about its ISO. Manufacturers aren't 'lying', it's just that there are many different standards for reporting ISO value.

Thank you for the answer. It sounds like a very good approach for the comparison tool. I still think the amount of dynamic range does rely on the ISO rating. The plots look like the DR is (partially) linearly dependent on ISO rating.

Yes, but that's because as you raise the ISO setting, the amplification clips brighter signals earlier. But this has everything to do with the fact that you're raising amplification, nothing to do with the claimed ISO and whether or not the manufacturer is 'lying'.

For cameras like the a7 III, all you really need to know is that there are two ISO-invariant ranges: 100-500, and 640-upward.

If you have a high contrast scene & want to maximize captured DR, follow this method:

If your exposure demands anything between ISO 125-500, you're better off keeping exposure settings the same (shutter speed / aperture), and dialing the ISO down to 100 and brightening the Raw later.

If you exposure demands anything between ISO 800-51,200, you're better off keeping the exposure settings the same & dialing the ISO down to ISO 640, brightening the Raw later.

This will afford you stops of highlight headroom at little to no noise cost.

Lets assume the A7iii is completely linear in the range of 800-50k ISO. If i had another copy which has the same DR at each ISO setting but would be one stop brighter due to some ISO shift. Which one would be the better camera?

I would think the second one is better because it can give the same DR at higher ISO. Maybe i understand it wrong?

" To future proof measurements and make them comparable to other brands we should measure the provided brightness at each ISO setting."

If dpreview fixed the shutter speed/iso, /focal length/aperture and ideally used the same lens (adapted if necessary) you would be able to see what you are asking for and I could see how it would be useful to include that in studio shots.

Also the adapted lens would level t he playing field a bit (for example for sony APS-C studio tests dpreview uses a modern $900 lens with zeiss special sauce but a 30 year old $350 lens for Canon APS-C) and would sort of be necessary because even if you fixed everything manually there could still be differences in light transmitted by the lenses.

But even without the adapted lenses using the same settings would help when comparing cameras from the same vendor. Call the new test "standardized ISO test" I think a lot of folks would lub it.

In video, in the Sony A7s for example, they took 100 ISO and pushed it with a gamma curve, up to 3200 brightness level keeping the highlights intact, and called it S-LOG2. (That was why S-LOG2 base ISO was 100) but my solution is not a LOG curve which would flatten the image, only the highlights and not even all of it. Keep sime highlights when you have so much of it!!!

"Why can we raise ISO overall brightnes IN-POST without clipping highlights, but can't do it in-camera?"

You do clip highlights if you raise the exposure in post processing. If you want to keep the highlights you can't push the entire file. You could selectively push the shadows.

About video and gamma curve (which i don't know much about). The raw image is the measured data from the sensor and anything captured is in it or not. You can't get more data by applying a curve to the data.

Applying a curve makes sense if you develop a jpg from the raw data. The jpeg can not contain all information and the shadows would be lost if you don't apply a curve to the data. Most modern cameras can do that in camera nowadays.

John, you are reading it as he is claiming they use the same light bulbs to light each seen, but in the context (you can use our scene to accurately compare ISO between manufacturers) it's easily (and perhaps more accurate) to read it as the amount of total light provided to the sensor which is affected by the shutter speed (as per your definition). At the end of the day they are giving more light to the Sony A7III by leaving the shutter open 20% longer at iso 100

Some above posted that RAW shutter speed is more rigorous but when you click on the link it defaults to jpeg with the shutter speed adjusted to give the sony an edge.

Raws are given the same exposure per ISO. JPEGs are given the exposure required to get middle grey to L = 50. We do this because we figure people shooting JPEG will want to see what a 'properly exposed' JPEG looks like, but those digging into Raw performance will actually want to differentiate sensor performance more rigorously.

Ebrahim - you are exactly right, but that exact gamma curve might vary from scene to scene, taste to taste. DR compensation modes try to do exactly this, some in a repeatable fashion, some in a context sensitive fashion. Smartphones are the best example of this, doing all sorts of trickery to maintain dynamic range in the scene. Trying to plot a single gamma curve for smartphone cameras would be an exercise in futility - it's changing dynamically all the time based on the scene.

@Rishi Glad I am not wrong about this. It just jumps toy mind all the time when I raise ISO during shooting and see highlights go. I say: My sensor can cope with that brightness, why isn't it giving me the base ISO highlights and just brightening the scene to the meter for my JPEG/SCREEN/ADOBE?

@Jochenis - Where is your evidence to back up your claim that manufacturers are not compliant with the ISO standard?

While I dislike some of DxO's measurements (such as the whole P-MP BS, along with single scores to distill a whole wide range of camera performance that can be altered drastically by single data point being off), their measured vs. stated ISO methodology is pretty solid, and I don't see them finding Sony or Canon to be overstated by anything more than 1/3EV in nearly any camera I've looked at in their measurements so far.

I don't have an actual copy of the standard, but in another discussion here or possibly on SAR, someone who DID have a copy of the standard said that it specifies that when a measurement falls between two 1/3EV increments, the manufacturer is always supposed to round UP to the next 1/3EV increment. So can you please provide evidence of a manufacturer other than Panasonic overstating by more than the 1/3EV specified by the standard?

Sorry i didnt make myself clear enough. My concern is about using the 'ISO setting' as an axis to plot measured data. DXO has "Measured ISO / Manufacturer ISO" data. They use that for the x-axis of all other plots. While i agree that base ISO DR is most important the DR per brightness is also important which cannot be compared if the x-axis is not measured.

Firslty I doubt someone with such a body will shoot JPEG most of the time. I never shooted jpeg since my first Canon DSLR.

If you need to push shadows in not so good light you already see it at 3200 at RAW. This would be typical conditions for wedding, shooting sport in dim hall forexample. I see even difference in 1600 ISO. The more you would push shadows the more issue as the noise multiple as you push them.

Don't make wrong assumptions here. The test scene shows similar results at ISO 100 for lets say D800 and 5D3, but everyone knows the real deal. Which means if you measure something, always keep in mind what you don't measure. My A7s has 3+ stops into the shadows ... at ISO6400!

Naturally, providing all that info means many more test images, much more time etc. on behalf of the DPR staff. Until they actually start doing that you may have to check other sources for this information, or actually real world test the cameras yourself, which is, considering everything, the best option, anyway.

Try again with raw. Why would you do any sort of IQ comparison with jpeg - which is subject to internal NR? The 36mp sensor is great, but its been surpassed by the newer models - the raws clearly demonstrate that.

Why are you surprised? It's a higher resolution sensor and that does indeed show all the way up to ISO3200 [where the gap is small in the older camera's favour]. By ISO25600 however, the advantage is with the A7III by a full stop or even slightly more. Doubtless some of that is due to the new architecture of the chip, but I can't help thinking a fair bit of it is down to the fact that the smaller pitch of very high resolution sensors makes them not very good at handling shot noise at ultra low frequencies.

I agree it can be confusing to some but the model lines are distinct. The A7 series is the base full frame model. Something like a Nikon d750 or a 6d mk 2. A7RIII is the their premium full frame camera with better build quality and high resolution sensor like the 5d mk 4 and D850.

The A9 is their flagship sports camera like the D5 and 1dx and finally the A7s is their video focused camera like the 1Dc and Panasonic GH5

Colour "accuracy" is only partially relevant. Colour is perceived differently by each individual, so colour preferences from cameras will vary, e.g. some people like "warm" skin tones, or a certain degree of violet or cyan in skies.

The colour rendition that is favoured e.g. by a wedding photographer or portrait shooter will very likely be different from that favoured by a sports photographer, and different again if you are a wildlife or landscape photographer.

Colours can be corrected, or to be more accurate "adjusted to personal taste" quite easily, either in the camera before shooting, or during post processing. It isn't difficult, but it does take a bit of practice.

A bit of trial and error quickly sorts things out, after which the adjustments can be applied automatically in most image editors by means of presets or macros.

I am not sure I want all camera brands to align to the consumer grade build of Sony mirrorless cameras. I like the concept of mirrorless, but so far only Leica have made it to the level of product quality I expect. Leica is too expensive for me, but Sony quality is too cheap. I will get into mirrorless system once someone will have made a mirrorless camera with good quality and good handling. Of course, with the rate a which Sony Alfa camera depreciate, I can understand that there is not point to build them better.

@Pentaust"I will get into mirrorless system once someone will have made a mirrorless camera with good quality and good handling."

That happened years ago, when mirrorless first started.

As for the 'consumer grade build' of Sony mirrorless I suggest you pop to the local bookshop to pick up a dictionary and on the way handle some Sony cameras in a shop. The A7rIII is built like a tank. Even the Next 5 had a fully metal body. Get your facts straight.

RubberDials - "The A7rIII is built like a tank". So it may be, but it has been shown to be prone to ingress of water, and for many photographers that makes it a non-starter.In the same weather-resistance test by IR, Nikon, Canon and Olympus all came through unscathed (unless you count a couple of drops of water in the Nikon eyepiece). The Sony was dead and non-recoverable.

pentaust - If you want ultimate build quality and weather-sealing in a FF mirrorless you'll have to wait for Canon (and eventually Nikon), but if you can settle for a smaller format, Olympus and Fujifilm cameras have excellent build quality.

entomanmajority of the people dont shoot in such a harsh conditions as was that test.Yes, sony need to do a small improvement but the issue was at the batter doors from bottom. In normal rain the water will not get there. Its already good weather sealed.

The smaller buffer of D750/6D2/5DmarkIV would limit me far more for example then on A7III. Its what important you pick up for yourself.

Also not well known fact but Sony kitlens 28-70//3.5-5.6 is weather sealed not unlike most competion basic kitlens. So what is better here...? having no weather sealing on my lens where the watter can go inside the body over the lens or a weather sealed batter compartement which has issue in heavy rain conditions only?

LadislavCZ - Yes I fully accept that most people don't shoot in harsh conditions, although anyone can get caught out in an unexpected rainstorm occasionally.

For my own purposes a camera that could not survive in such conditions would be a risk that I wouldn't be prepared to take. I spend a lot of time photographing in rainforests and cloudforests, and even when it isn't raining the humidity levels are extremely high.

I would never use a basic (i.e. cheap) kit lens as the optical performance is invariably awful at frame edges, rendering them unsuitable for landscape photography.

But that's just me - I fully accept that others may have less stringent requirements.

LadislavCZ - Small buffer on 5DMkiv? I wouldn't be concerned about that. I've got 2 Canon bodies - the buffer on my 5DS is small and the camera slows down after 3 seconds of RAW shooting, but it wasn't designed as a sports camera.

There is no buffer problem with 5DMkiv. Mine will keep on shooting RAWs at full 7fps speed for at least 4 seconds which is more than enough for birds in flight etc; and after a pause of less than a second it is fully able to shoot another burst. I can shoot all day like this, as I recently did in Kenya.

If I need more than that I can switch to JPEGs in which case the 5DMkiv and 5DS will both shoot continuously at max fps until the card fills or the battery dies.

entoman,I did not say its SMALL but SMALLER then A7III. 10FPS is really nice for action sport but of course the buffer size you need depend on the sport you shoot. I do like to shoot equestrian jumping and large buffer and high burst speed is welcome. There was a gap in FF line up for that at decent price point and its not the case with A7III anymore. Before it was either A9 or A6500. If you wanted to go from A6500 with high burst large buffer there were no other options in Sony FF line. That was my point but as said in my previous post different people have different needs. I just wanted to point out to what A7III offer better over those CaNikon bodies

Also that "issue" with weather sealing at battery compartment is not issue for me neither because I usually protect the camera as soon as rain start. I doubt the normal rain would be issue as well and will be not issue for majority of people so I would not be worried. I understand the best available weather sealing is the key for you.

As for the basic lens kit. This one is really quite sharp in the center for a kit lens and for sure it will be used by some people like on previous A7 bodies. Isn't it nice touch to have weather sealing on basic kit lens. I am sure not many people know it so just wanted to point it out. Its nice added value. Honestly we all know that if you want to get best of those bodies you need better lenses.

Ladislav - The issue with water ingress is not just limited to rain. The situation in which it is most likely to occur is if the camera is placed down on a damp surface (e.g. soil, moss, damp sand, a wet table, wet grass). Humid conditions would also allow ingress via the battery cover.

I'm sure that Sony will fix this on future models, after the damning weather-resistance report in IR, but I'd definitely advise carrying a small plastic bag in your pocket to protect the camera. If the camera dies due to water ingress, it won't be covered by insurance.

This issue in NOT confined to Sony cameras - I had problems in humid conditions with two different Canon 6D bodies, which is why I upgraded to 5DMkiii (and later to 5DS and 5DMkiv).

@entomanI've heard that water test quoted so many times by so many people as proof of so many things when it is proof of nothing other than the A7rIII is not as water resistant as the D850 or 5D4. If that is important to you don't buy the Sony.

I am also confident that Sony will address the issue and provide full sealing against water ingress long before Canon or Nikon make a camera as good as the A7rIII.

In the meantime it remains one of the precious few brickbats to beat the Sony with as most people would not subject their camera to that level of water exposure and it's not as if the camera can't be protected with a cover if you do.

In smooth Arabian desert sand, the 5D + 24-105mm came out without a speck inside. The A7rII came out with quite a bit of sand everwhere and took about an hour to clean up. But the major problem was that A7rII overheating and shutting off at about half the time the 5DIV worked, shooting 4K.

But then again who shoots in a middle eastren desert at 1pm in Summer...

RubberDials - It's not used as a brickbat. I don't bash anyone for choosing any camera, but I think Sony deserve very strong criticism for the weather-sealing problem.

I considered a a7Riii as I'd like a mirrorless body to use with my Canon glass, but a camera that leaks is completely useless to me, as I shoot mainly in tropical conditions where high humidity and sudden rainfall are the norm.

I disagree about your 2nd para. I thin that Sony will fix the weather-sealing at the next iteration but it will take a new geeneration of cameras before they reach the build quality of Canon or Nikon. At round about the same time I think Canon and Nikon will catch up with Sony sensor tech. This is all about 4 years away IMHO.

Ebrahim - That doesn't surprise me at all. Another of the virtues of a DSLR is that even if dust or sand get into the camera they are far less likely to get onto the sensor, due to the mirror blocking the path.

I've been using Canon DSLRs for 7 years now, and shot several hundred thousand images. I change lenses regularly in the field - which for me means anything from tropical rainfoests to deserts, and I've only ONCE had dust on the sensor. The combination of weather sealing and Canon's really excellent anti-dust sensor vibrating system just makes dust a non-issue.

In smooth Arabian desert sand, the 5D + 24-105mm came out without a speck inside. The A7rII came out with quite a bit of sand everwhere and took about an hour to clean up. But the major problem was that A7rII overheating and shutting off at about half the time the 5DIV worked, shooting 4K.

But then again who shoots in a middle eastren desert at 1pm in Summer...

Good point... my experience with mirrorless is the overheating as well. With the sensor turned on and being bombarded with IR and photons non-stop... it just gets plain hot. The heat absolutely affects the imagery. Try shooting for a couple hours... take a control shot at the beginning of the session and then take the same shot at the end of the session. You'll see a lot more noise in the last shot than you did in the first. Also, I've had overheating/shutoff issues as well during lengthy video shoots or in hot locales.

@BuecheThe charts also show colour fade at high ISO which Sony has not really fixed with the smaller sensors. Sony RX100 comparisons showing how the fault free perfect in every way RX100 matches large sensors need to avoid colour to gloss over this problem. A good example is the camerastore G1X III review where they show an inset of the G1X II vs the RX100 with a grey camera but look carefully at the small red button.I wonder if the need still for these large sensors is because they cannot fix this colour flattening problem at high or even ISO for all this technological advancement. So even the dopey old sensor in the G1X II still has an edge here.

Would any Canon lens become image stabilised as well as af compatible with that Sigma adapter on a Sony body. I saw a Jason Lainer video where the eye focus tracking on an L85 f1.2 kept up on a model walking far from camera to close up, looked amazing ! I struggle with that on my 5D mk3

chriswySony can do Eye tracking with their APSC models already at the same price a s M50 ;). Canon has too much product segmentation and it does not work nowdays when you can choose better specification in other brands.

I was Canon guy and wanted Canon mirroless but at that time it was heavily subpar with competion and unfortunately it is still.

@LadislavCZ Actually Canon IS still in game. However, camera tests are conducted nowadays in a way to let certain products shine. Canon doesn't invest enough to tilt the scale. That pretty much is what's going on today. For example, exposure latitude tests only include shadow recovery but no look into highlight reservation. Now a Leica M10 with only 1/3 EV of highlight headroom becomes a "innovation" against the old model that does 1 stop reservation. D850 can do only 1 stop without color shift while Canon tolerates another stop. Lens are optimized to different distances as well, yet lens test doesn't reflect this.

But one thing I do agree, with Canon you do need to pay to get the best. Money is the only issue between user and a great product, which is a sad fact in this commercial world. This applies to homes, automobiles, and medi-care.

comparing switching between phones and between camera system is completely different story ;)

And the price is not last thing to consider in any business. It will always has the key role. I work daily in business, large multinational customers and pricing play big role to choose between different products.

I predict that it will take 3 years before Sony cameras reach the build quality and level of ergonomics of current cameras.

I also predict that it will take 3-4 years before Canon's FF mirrorless can pull level with Sony on sensor performance.

In 3-4 years time FF mirrorless cameras from Sony, Canon and Nikon will be so close together in build quality, ergonomics and image quality that they'll be virtually inseparable, unless one of the brands makes a really dramatic breakthrough.

Every Nikon I've had with a Sony-made sensor handily beats the corresponding Sony model. If Sony were to quit screwing around with weird compression and work on their ugly colors, then they too can make the most of their own sensors.

@rbach44Beats it is what? Every Nikon you had with a Sony-made sensor also had no on-sensor phase detect points which is why the A7rIII outscored the D850 in focus accuracy when DPR tested both cameras.

I'll take OSPDAF over ISO 64 any day of the week.

As for the 'ugly colours cr*p' - what next? Sony cameras lower house prices?

Beats it at making good looking images. Maybe its a point on of difference between you and I but I’d much rather have better skin tones, highlight handling, and better dynamic range than AF points. I’ve owned both and shot with them extensively and can say that despite what the tests say, Nikons reliably produce more pleasing images under a wider range of conditions than my Sony ever could.

On sensor phase detection? Still not really sure who that helps. Most of the Olympics photographers seemed to get by just fine without on on-sensor phase detection, so I don’t feel like I’m missing out much…

Color is a matter of profiles and processing, unless you are using untouched out-of-camera jpg files. If so, you can fine tune the camera to yur taste before taking photos. No one could pick a couple of pictures from the web or a magazine and say: Those are camera X color, and those are camera Y color. Do you really believe in such nonsense?

On sensor phase detection and contrast detection combined help you get rid of the DSLR mirror, ground glass and viewfinder prism. DSLR phase focus detection modules have to be calibreated, and they often tend to miss perfect focus. Some german photo magasines went into this, explaining why DSLR cameras is less precise at bright aperture values, compared to on-sensor focus solutions. Want the best, or the more traditional tech?

@rbach44If you had a D850 or any high MP camera you'd know how important focus accuracy is.

Both DPR and Jim Kasson found the PDAF focus accuracy far inferior to the A7rIII. That's not surprising as it's not off sensor. Nikon offers very good calibration options but they need to be performed before each shot to maintain the accuracy of a mirrorless system.

From DPR:

"the Nikon back-focused despite the autofocus point being placed directly over the subjects face. At this particular distance, this happened repeatedly. Not wanting to AF fine tune a lens in the middle of a shoot (seemed rude), I switched into Live View, which uses the main image sensor and contrast detection to focus incredibly accurately, and all was well. Then I moved in closer and resumed shooting through the viewfinder, and lo and behold, the 105mm was tack sharp again.

However, repeated testing has shown both that lenses (including our 105mm F1.4) can require different fine tuning for different focus depths.

Jim found that using the PDAF system the optimum AF varied by aperture, lens focal length, serial number and distance. Because there is no shooting scenario where you can control all of these factors he recommended using live view with it's CDAF where possible and if you have to use PDAF:

"Take lots of pictures, and cherry-pick in postproduction. Even if the mean is off, you can be sure that you’ll get many images that aren’t focused there."

He also recommended that the photographer:

"Show some flexibility in evaluating the position of the sharp plane."

i.e. accept that he isn't always going to get pin sharp shots. This is a very big deal with a camera that is design primarily for detail capture.

I prefer PDAF OVF shooting for action photography, mainly because it's easier to work in intense lighting without the EVF going wonky or underexposed to adjust to light changes. EVFs while amazing for many things, really suck for this type of shooting.

On the flip side, I vastly prefer the EVF for things like portrait shooting, mainly because the on-sensor PDAF is more accurate in gauging focus especially at faster apertures. I can get pinpoint focus even with 1.2 lenses, no problem! In this regards, DSLRs can't compare.

With the D750 versus A7 II, the D750 definitely has nicer colors SOOC and meters spot-on while handling complicated lighting and contrast. It's just easier to work with D750 raw files. With the A7 II, it definitely excels in base ISO acuity, great for portraits and street photography.

I have no bias towards either, since I use both accordingly to their strengths. ;-)

It's been there for over 2 years now. Nothing unique about the sensor. It has dual conversion gain, which results in better mid/high ISO. Same as what was introduced on the A6300 and A7R II. It's just that the A7 II didn't get a new sensor, so it was stuck with the 2012 sensor from the A99 that came in the original A7, too. Which is why the A6300 matched/beat the A7 II in image quality and AF, despite having much smaller photosites.

Could someone please explain to me the scientific part DPR added on how we shouldn't only shoot at 200 and 640 them being with highest dynamic range?

They're saying something about pixel-level amplification and noise I guess, can't think of a reason why one should shoot at 500 ISO when 640 ISO is that much higher in DRIt's like cinema camera you don't shoot 320 on the C300 you shoot 850, better image and the manufacturers call it "the native ISO").

I can't explain scientifically. I think your guess with noise is correct. While the DR might be better you still get a penalty on signal to noise ratio. You can see that for yourself in the comparison tool: Pick 2 exposures with the same DR and compare them. It worked for me with the A7Riii.

The A7.3 looks more and more interesting, and with the amount of lens development for the format it's starting to look like a mighty interesting proposition.

That said, there's a couple of things I'd like them to adress before I take the plunge.

1. Better build. My RX's are literally falling apart - are the 7's up to my every day abuse?2. Swiveling screens. A must for video (for me) 3. Better ergonomics and handling. The grip and the menus are just so-so. I hope that Sony would improve those.

1. The RX are extremely well built. Seems you might be abusing your equipment too much.

2. You're not going to get swivel screens. This isn't something Sony is building up to, we've had tilt screens since 2008. The Sony way is to tilt for waist level viewing on the lens axis.

The best you can hope for is they implement an A77-style multi-angle bracket.

3. When most people talk about ergonomics they're mostly referencing size and prior learning. No-one talked about ergonomics when Sony was making DSLRs. The same people are designing their mirrorless cameras. They don't have inferior ergonomics, they're just smaller.

Sony menus don't scroll vertically. That's why they have more pages than Canon or Nikon - oh, and the cameras have more features.

I'll gladly admit that I don't baby my gear, however I had both durability issues with both my RX10 and RX100 mkIII - something I haven't had with both Canon, Panasonic and Olympus bodies.

Point 2 slightly infuriates me - all the recent Sonys are great for video, yet they can't be arsed to put in a useful screen even in their video-focused cameras (A7S and RX10's)

Point 3. It took Sony forever to add touchscreens to their mirrorless cameras - that suggests to me, that usability doesn't seem to be a real concern when Sony makes camera. It's a shame, because as you point out, they have some of the best cameras out there in terms of features.

"3. When most people talk about ergonomics they're mostly referencing size and prior learning. No-one talked about ergonomics when Sony was making DSLRs. The same people are designing their mirrorless cameras. They don't have inferior ergonomics, they're just smaller."

Why spread falsehoods like this. Sony designs cameras like boxes, and that's why the ergonomics are not there on most of their models. It seems to be getting better, but your reasoning is lethargic.

Most mirrorless cameras are designed around the usual center dial + button + 4 surrounding buttons, + dials on top and a few more buttons here and there. I mean, look at the Panasonic GX series. It's literally a bigger A6xxx camera with a smaller sensor. Or Sigma's mirrorless, which is an A6xxx ready for the fat farm. There really are just two form factors for cameras: boxy/rangefinder and DSLR. Anything else is considered weird and shunned.

So yeah, you need to learn how to handle the type you haven't shot before. Imagine someone who shot mirrorless all their life trying to shoot DSLR, and wondering why it's so huge and heavy, with no noticeable improvement in performance to show for it.

All good and nice improvement but pink and purple dots are still pink and purple dots. So, Sony, take a page from the archaic technology used way, way back by Amiga computers and use an updated HAM (hold and modify) technology. The HAM 8 bit computer would plot a pixel, modify the next pixel one shade off and in doing so increase the palate availability beyond 8 bits (so, red would modify to orange and then yellow rather than transition directly from red to yellow). The modified pixel would only be noticeable under close scrutiny. In this case, the properly exposed subject pixel would be compared to the overall cast and the pixel next door, in any direction, could be modified away from registering purple or pink but rather a smidge off but closer the subject pixel. Won't be perfect but better than smearing details with PP. There are better explanations out there but you get the point. Sony, if you are reading this, remember where you heard it. P.S. Fix the ergonomic of the RX10 series.

Another question I have is how will the A7iii fare with adapted wide angle Canon lenses. I have a Canon 16-40 f4/L. I know in the past corner sharpness has been an issue adapting wide angle lenses to Sony. I wonder if the A7iii sensor design may be more forgiving for adapted wide angle lenses?

I have experience here, just use the Sigma MC-11 adapter (with latest firmware Update) and you will have no problems using your Canon glass on Sony A7III or other Sony E-mount cameras. Do not get the Metabones adapter, it works poorly with Canon glass on Sony. I know ,I have used both adapters . I have Sony A7RIII, A6500, and have ordered a A7III.

Interesting thanks!...But the issue I am referring to is an optical one....with wide angle Canon lenses I have heard that they appear soft near the edges when adapted to a Sony body...an adapter shouldn't really impact that since it isn't "doing anything" optically. I believe it is a sensor issue. I am hoping that Sony may have done something with the sensor design in the A7iii to make it more accommodating to non-native wide angle lenses.

gwilliams6: I use the Metabones V, too, and it performs better in green mode than the MC-11 for stills. This seems to be the consensus if you read the forums. The MC-11 has a small video advantage. My Canon lenses focus as well as Sigma lenses with the Metabones.

MC-11 still uses OSPDAF and/or CDAF (depending on the lens) so no AF fine tuning necessary. In that respect, yes, it's foolproof, since it will always focus accurately as long as you give it time to. Focus speed depends on the lens and camera, though the A6xxx series, A9, and A7 III series all have very fast AF.

The main wide angle issues were the original A7 series, where the microlenses weren't optimized for how close the rear element of certain adapted vintage lenses sat compared to DSLRs/SLTs. This was resolved in the II generation, and probably relined even more in the III. DSLR lenses like the 16-40L pose no significant problem, since they sit so far away from the sensor.

"...The main wide angle issues were the original A7 series, where the microlenses weren't optimized for how close the rear element of certain adapted vintage lenses sat compared to DSLRs/SLTs. This was resolved in the II generation, and probably relined even more in the III. DSLR lenses like the 16-40L pose no significant problem, since they sit so far away from the sensor...."

All this makes sense logically. However, there still seem to be examples on the web where there is smearing or significant softening near the perimeter of the images with adapted Canon lenses on a current vintage Sony A7xx vs. the same lens mounted on a Canon body...just worries me as a Canon shooter considering switching to Sony.

It sounds like a lot of Canon faithful are heading towards the A7 III with their EF lenses in tow. I can't wait to watch all the youtube videos of how this combo performs. If it's near flawless, it's a rap.

This indicates to me some of the problems Canon might have with a new FF mirrorless body. Do they design the sensor (micro lenses) for new mirrorless lenses, or for EF? It might not be that big of a deal, but with Sony you know the sensors and lenses are fully optimized.

Sony has three years of Tech over Canon & Nikon in FF mirrorless digital chips and processor engines. What Sony doesn't have is user friendly menu's or acceptable file transfer systems from the camera to cell phones or laptops with any real speed or original file sizes. In other words the Sony App is terrible! Until all FF mirrorless & DSLR digital cameras of interchangeable lens ability; work as easily as a cell phone in file transfer, all the majors will lose big-time to the advancing cell phone technologies.

eastwestphoto, sorry but you are dreamimg. Sony's latest cameras menus are fine, you just have to get familiar with them to appreciate all the features and custom settings. Sony images transfer to cell phones and laptop as well as any camera, with no issues. I don't know what your problem is. Real photographers don't base their imaging on cell phones. Top Mirrorless camera tech(like in Sony full-frame cameras) is stunning now, and the quality is so far beyond what any cellphones can produce. My cellphone is the last camera i would reach for, for any professional work. Get real !!

Agreed. My a6500's menu system is no better or worse than the one in my old Canon 80D. Maybe initial discovery of settings was easier on the Canon, but the Sony is just as easy after using it for a minute. Much better than my AX100's menus. The only issue I really have is that I cannot use the touchscreen to navigate the menu. That's a nice to have feature.

Yup, I'm guessing people who don't like Sony's menu system have never used it. It's so much like Canon's, with color coding added and reorganization over the past couple years, I'm not sure what the problem is.

I find it difficult to believe that dynamic range at base ISO 100 is only 0.4 EV/stops off the dynamic range at ISO 640, where the sensor works with only 1/6th of the light.

DPreview really has to explain more how do they come to these numbers and how applicable they are to actual photography (especially with regard to what is considered acceptable noise at the shadows, from what I understand).

I mean, 0.4 stops dynamic range difference is barely noticable. So much so one maybe could opt to work directly with ISO 640 if there is any chance of pictures thrown away for motion blur.

With 14bit raw you can't have more dynamic range at base iso. It is limited by the number of bits used for saving the data.It is amazing that the camera still achieves almost the same DR at higher iso with the dual gain amplification. However you still get more noise at higher iso (a measurement of signal to noise ratio is not shown here). If deciding between motion blur and a bit of noise, i would prefer people shots to be sharp and landscapes to be noise free.

Modern mirrorless sensors from several brands, not just Sony, can have dual native base ISO ranges, resulting in both a low ISO setting AND a high ISO setting being the best native base range with least noise. . Panasonic and Fuji also list dual native ISO ranges on their mirrorless camera sensors.

That's true, but none of those sensors recover the same amount of dynamic range that DPReview is reporting here (~1.7 stops), at least using traditional definitions of dynamic range, including the A7R2 that DPReview is comparing against. They're either using a different definition of dynamic range or using some non-standard way of measuring it. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's incorrect, just different than what we're used to seeing.

I concur… Despite what the measurements say I find it hard to believe that dynamic range is almost the same at ISO 100 and ISO 800.

DXOMark isn’t showing anything close to this, maybe a small bump in dynamic range at ISO 640. Not that DXOMark is god here, but when two supposedly quantitative measurements are giving different results something seems odd.

Theres nothing about the Sony sensors that seem to fall behind the measurements. As someone who has owned both an A7 and a D600, two cameras that measure rather similarly, I can say for experience that they are NOT similar in IQ. Who knows…

@rbach: DXO isn't measuring at all intermediate isos, so the curves looked smoothed. Whatever you believe, the measurements are clear on this part and iso 640 dr is better than dr at iso500, for example. This is nothing new since dual gain was introduced.

If one were to extrapolate the info from DPReview’s graph into DXOmark’s, then Dynamic Range would be equal at ISO 200 and 800, 400 and 1600, etc. But according to DXOmark the amount of DR decreases normally from base ISO with a little bump at ~ISO800.

Why are these graphs so different between two measurements? I would like to know how DPReview came to these measurements…

@rbach: Bill Claff, DPreview, Jim Kasson all calculate DR getting you to similar results each. Bill Claff is reproducing and using DXO's data, too, to cross-check his results. Apart form using a different S/N ratio criteria, they calculate DR at more iso values and furthermore don't _smooth_ the data. This discussion has been taken part numerous times since the introduction of dual gain in the Dpreview forum. There, they also discuss how these data are obtained. Look at photonstophotos.com, or Jim Kasson's blog for more information.

Good point on clarifying our methods. We should have a sticky article to point to explaining our method; we'll work on that. In the meantime:

We're measuring what some term 'Engineering Dynamic Range' or EDR for short. Bill Claff, Jim Kasson and I are all measuring essentially the same thing (though Bill also measures the arguably more photographically relevant 'Photographic Dynamic Range' or PDR, which uses a higher threshold for acceptable levels of noise at the lower end). We each use our own methodologies, yet arrive at pretty much the same result +/- 0.1 EV here & there.

We use dark frames at all ISOs to measure the read noise, we measure the white point with a 'white frame', then take log base 2 (# of stops) of the ratio between these.

My only guess for our discrepancies with DXO is that AFAIK DXO fit data to a model, & I'm not certain their models has been updated to account for dual gain. Our base ISO numbers are generally in agreement, as they also measure EDR.

Actually, Bill's EDR data agree with ours. I assume you were looking at his PDR data, which is different, and frankly probably a more realistic and relevant measure of dynamic range. :)

Bill measures 13.8 EV at ISO 100, which only drops 0.5 EV to 13.3 EV at ISO 640, up from 11.9 EV at ISO 500. We got pretty much the exact same numbers, using slightly different methods, albeit from the same set of Raws. The corroboration is nice.

This is a game changing camera. I switched from Canon after 40 years, yes 40, to Sony in January 2017 and have never looked back. I have Sony A7RIII, A6500, and have ordered this A7III. Sony full-frame mirrorless cameras are the leaders now for price/performance.

Everybody who buys s G9 or GH5 or E-M1 MK II ... 6D MK II or whatever in 1500-200 EUR range must be simply ... or a fanboy... :D There is no reason...The Expensive professional MFT lenses are quite big and heavy and the above mentioned bodies as well.

As you are a self proclaimed Canon user, I can understand your frustration with brand loyalty. However, you obviously have an ironically narrow sense of vision in regards to creative content workflow or the specifics of development.

The A7III may tick many of the boxes a FF user many seek for 2K. However, there are many areas that it does not suffice, which would lead others to various other manufacturers for their myriad of needs.

Sony lenses are crazy expensive I know.... But when a photographer make a living with a camera, why not choosing the camera which ticks more boxes :) This auto focus capabilities convince even guys like Tony Northrup who said a few years ago that for sports you have to choose a DSLR. Now it's a different story. With this perfectly working eye-auto focus life gets much easier. The Camera Store TV guys are saying that Sony made pretty much everything right with this camera, they complained only about not having the A9 viewfinder inside.And who knows, maybe this camera works better with Metabones or similar adapters.

Not so fast, it will take a complete Nikon and Canon tech rethink to catch up with Sony now. Nikon and Canon will try fro sure, but may find it hard to match this A7III in full-frame technology and performance at this price.

This whole "ISO thing" needs an article to explain it in detail. As it is written here, at least I cannot really grasp it.

On a side note, this blip at 800 that renders almost useless if I understand ISO 640 reminds me a bit of Honda Vtec. Is there really a point for there to be a blip? Why can't they strive to hit the "sweet spot" over a larger ISO range?fyi Honda did remove the Vtec blip on latter models.

I agree. I would like to understand the underlying concepts more. You can use the comparison tool to compare iso 100 to iso 800 of the A7Riii. Iso 800 does look pretty good in terms of highlights conserved/shadows but also is a bit more noisy.In this article the measurement of signal to noise ratio (SNR) is not shown. I guess a better understanding of the situation could be achieved by understanding the connection and differences between SNR and DR.

It's really only significant to photographers like landscape shooters, who want to eek out every last bit of DR possible on every shot. The sensor is so clean at low ISO, you really won't notice the extra noise if you don't shoot at the exact optimal ISO for the situation.

"And if you're confused about when the camera drops to 12-bit – which is the only time you'd see these drops in DR – the only combination that diverges from 14-bit is when you shoot compressed Raw in (any) continuous drive mode. All other combinations of Mechanical or Electronic shutter, drive mode or Raw type are 14-bit."

oh oh...I thought this was the greatest sensor ever....similar to nikon 850?? that;s a letdown."So what's the take-away? The a7 III's image quality more or less matches what we've come to expect from modern, well-performing full-frame sensors. There's really not much difference between the a7 III, the a7R III, the a7R II, or the Nikon D850 for that matter."

@RubberDials pointless comment. Ergonomics for myself was bad for the a7r3 when I tried it with the White g master lens in the shop. So off balance. Sorry you can hate me all day long, just my point of view. Just bought a G9 yesterday. Love it.

I have a GH4 and a GH5 , good ergonomics on both I’ve tried Sony A7s , but they haven’t got it right thereI’m buying a D850 next month and eventually then a Nikon mirrorless FF camera as I know they will get the ergonomics (and the rest) right

@FriskyIf you've found something you like I'm pleased for you - there's no hate involved.

You've just admitted you were speaking about the A7rIII, not the A7III so my comment was accurate.

The problem I have with people talking about 'bad ergonomics' is they're not talking about ergonomics most of the time, they're talking about size differences or prior learning. Or even preferences. If I don't like bananas - that doesn't mean they're bad to eat.

Having a lens body combination that is front heavy is not a consequence of poor design. It has nothing to do with design.

And if you want to make the A7rIII heavier to act as a counterweight to a heavy lens, just attach the battery grip. The camera's now the same size and weight as the D850.

So to take advantage of the ISO invariance I need to dynamically set an underexposure according to the metering...or basically shoot in M mode with everything locked?--------------On second thought no, but I often shoot in conditions where one would struggle with a stable shot at ISO6400, that's what I was thinking about. Usually conditions where one could shoot at ISO640 and still get 1/100 or faster and not get too much clipped highlights don't last, that would be some time at dawn and dusk.

Yeah, I understand. This prompts me to use one of the custom modes though, never needed one up until now. I hope the custom modes also save my screen settings, I'll need to decouple screen brightness from exposure.

Uh-oh. It's excellent performance overall, but there was one thing that I did not want to see...and it was the compressed RAW performance. I thought the dynamic range performance would be nearly equal. It seems to be nowhere near equal... So now, I'll probably have to start using double the storage space (at least for daylight situations) because I know how much better dynamic range I'll be able to get with uncompressed RAW. We really need a lossless compressed option...

First of all, do your daylight scenes need that much dynamic range? Are you pushing the shadows to the limit? Hardly not. Not even for bright sunshine shots with a white dressed bride and a black dressed groom.

I think many would be surprised to find out what dynamic range is used for most pictures. Much of the range is left just black.

@BlueBomberTurbo: I want you to be right. I just want to know how you interpret the chart "a7 III Uncompressed (orange) vs. Compressed 12-bit (light orange) performance" above... How is this, which shows results that are different from what you say, to be taken in a different way? Is there 14-bit uncompressed, 14-bit compressed, and 11+7 (12?)-bit compressed as well? Is the 14-bit compressed during single-shot and 11+7 compressed in continuous? I haven't found the answer to that yet.

@Novel01 and @BlueBomberTurbo: Okay... I figured it out. You're right. So as long as I stay in single shot drive mode and used compressed, then it will still be 14-bit, and that will look better than 11+7-bit compressed, which only occurs when it is put in continuous mode. Although I wish it were all 14-bit, I'm glad that at least single shot drive mode (which is what I shoot the vast majority of the time) is 14-bit, with comparable dynamic range to uncompressed. So unless I'm shooting some majorly contrasting things like lights in pitch black, I shouldn't have to worry about switching over to uncompressed and (in my opinion) doubling my data storage amount for no appreciable difference in quality. I do still hope for 14-bit losslessly-compressed RAW in all modes, though, as that would be the best option always (unless there's something I'm missing).

I was starting to consider this because of the price point and other things. I think Sony is killing it in the FF arena right now. I shoot M4/3's and am happy with my gear, but, this pushes a lot of buttons. I carry my camera a lot and don't like neck straps so I looked at the weight of this vs. a G9 and it is only 71 grams which I could live with. Then I looked at the body plus the 70-200 2.8 lens and M4/3's equivalent and the weight difference jumped to an almost 3 pound difference and over twice as heavy!

I will be sticking with Panasonic for now. I love my light setup and as far as the DOF difference, I almost always want more anyway, and that's easier with the smaller sensor. Why would anyone only want one eye in focus anyway?

mike, don't get upset, just listen when people tell you the truth about the gear you own... if you are going to shoot m4/3, learn what equivalence is, so you'll understand why m4/3 doesn't have more dof.

Thanks for the info. My $10K worth of Panny gear has paid for itself 15 times over as a hobbyist, so I'm not really worried about what other peoples experience has been in this regard. Mine has proven successful and lightweight.

All that matters is everyone who has paid me for pictures has been happy enough to call me back with more work and or recommend me to someone else. Not everyone is a pixel peeper. It seems lots of people are more than happy with my photos. I must just appeal to the right market. ~night...

Mike, I don't see you being upset here at all. If you have clients paying for your work that are happy...that is all that matters. I had the same after nearly 750 weddings in my career. As to OSV, I didn't post mush...he just decided to comment on a photo I posted showing the background bokeh...and he attacked it for sharpness...even though it was a tiny jpg posted for other reasons. I'm not upset at all..he got laughed ot for it...no problem to me. Enjoy what gear works for you...and dont pixel peep 😁

There is only the 35-100/2 which is 70-200/4 FF equivalent and insanely expensive. You may choose lighter gear at your own preference but don't lie about equivalence and call other people names for pointing it out.

don't feed the troll... I doubt that Mike has ever being paid for photographic jobs (he is not even afraid to exagerate extremely, stating that his 10k equipment has been paid over 15 times, so he earned 150.000$ with his jobs? Shooting with an m4/3 with only one card slot? ;)).A 'pro' that asks things like 'Why would anyone only want one eye in focus anyway'... really? (As if it is only about getting one eye in focus... tztz)A 'pro' that says things like 'I almost always want more (dof) anyway'... really? Also for portraits?A 'pro' that thinks about switching to FF and only THEN realising that the lenses are the thing that are adding a lot of weight? Really?

Mike just states that FOR him the Sony when we look at the whole system doesn't get what he want because it gets him more weight he doesn't like. The same is true for me too. In fact I use my GM5 much more so surely in private than my EM1.2 which I use for action shooting, events and landscape with its 80 MP HiRes mode. My customers (I am nowhere near a pro to be very clear but do get hired still nowadays) are very very pleased with the pics I shoot. To me a good cam must be good for me. The most important part is the interfacing actually: I must feel comfortable with the cam. The Oly I have to say falls short here...Then there is IQ, focussing, stabilisation etc. But most of all: there is me. I am convinced a large majority of the people contemplating the A7III do so based on a spec sheet and how pro's and reviewers can make the most out of it. Where they can't and would be better served with an RX100 or so.

Peter1976: You don't beleive him because his stance doesn't suit your POV. So therefor you go for the person and not for his arguments. As usual, because you cannot argue with a personal preference which for some seems too hard to swallow.

Jorginho. No. I only go for arguments, as I don't know him. But I am always sceptical if one states sth. like earning 150.000$ in a short period time with a 4/3 camera (as he claimed) :). And if one claimes that (and therefore that he is a high professional), one has to tolerate critical voices, no?I really grant him a fortune, but it is just not credible, even more after checking his photos on his facebook site, where he shows his portfolio and offers. With all respect, the portraits are not even mediocre (harsh sunlight, harsh flash light etc.), the real estate photos are just average snapshots, like all the event photos. So no wonder he doesn't see any advantage of going FF.

Nothing wrong with mediocre shots, as said, I grant him a fortune. But 150k$?? If that's true, I'll pack my suitcase and fly to that island ;).

Wow! People here can sure be harsh. All I was trying to say is that for me, the weight difference is too big to justify the marginal IQ performance gains I see in the ISO ranges I use for what I do, but I'm impressed with the camera. This is my opinion based on how I see things. I know most people think differently, and I am happy for you, and will not question your reasons for how you live your life. For those of you that think I would come here and lie, whatever...

First of all, I don't even know what a high professional is. I have never claimed to be a pro, and don't even think of myself as a photographer. I have friends in the entertainment industry that liked my style and asked me to shoot their show, then their wedding and it just started snowballing from there. This was just evenings and weekends and over 5 years I managed to make a nice chunk of change shooting everything from casinos and yachts to graduation pics and just about everything in between. I have hundreds of prints hanging in hotels at up to 6ft across. Maybe they chose me because working with a nice guy was important to them. All I know is I only had one client during that time not call me back and that was the Hyatt Regency. Either way, it came out to good money. I retired and moved last year and am now a glorified dog walker that spends a lot of time in the bush and I don't want heavy gear no matter the perceived benefits.

Mike, sometimes I cannot hold back, so sorry. But well... it was you initially showing off how much money you make with your setup ("My $10K worth of Panny gear has paid for itself 15 times over" so = 150.000$).An invitation for investigation :) :).And the article was about dynamic range in a FF camera. Neither about size or weight nor the dis/advantages compared to 4/3.

It is like reading a review about the torque of a new enginge of a Porsche and then finding a comment like "my BMW is smaller and therefore better for my style of driving". What the heck does one thing to do with the other? Right, nothing.

Peter 1976: your first reply to Mike was not on topic at all. Only about first of all his claim nd then mostly your suspiscion. Your last reply: Mike just explained how he feels about this cam and how it is not for him. I never knew there were restrictions as to from what angle you come from and how something is perceived and why on an open forum.

I just wonder why people comment on camera reviews (not even a review, but a technical test about DR) "I don't like this camera, because mine is better for me"? What drives them? Does it add anything valuable to a discussion? It is not about restrictions, it is just about wondering.And still, the 150.000$ thing is, well... nevermind.

Well the basic function of fora like these are how people perceive these kind of things. So Mike shares his thoughts and his reasoning why he on one hand feels attracted to it but then also sees downsides and provides reasons why to him on second thoughts it is not for him. Not informative for you but it tells me indeed that some downsides are not alleviated at all.

Well, they gave you some scientific tests and showed the results. I guess there would be no reason for anyone to comment on a list of facts, but they do...

I brought up the money, because some photo snobs seem to think the only good camera is theirs of FF or one with a mirror. My point was that my gear seems to be OK too if people will pay me to use it.

Yes I knew the lenses were heavier, but didn't realize how much heavier on the longer glass, because I've never really considered a FF camera until this one. Some others might not realize it either, so I shared. At least it was real and not all of this flaming crap some seem to be so good at. I never said anything bad about the Sony, just pointed out why it wasn't a good fit for me.

If you guys want to give me your email I'll run all potential posts past you first to make sure they meet your standards. You can PM me if you don't want them shared with everyone. ;)

I do and I don't care. What I care about is exp, and 2.8 is 2.8. I don't care about razor thin DOF because it is ugly, and when I do I use my Nocticron. I have been reading all the FF people try to explain why there system is so much better than crop or M4/3's, and then turn around and call Mf incremental to FF. I've read it all, and I understand it all. It is not important to me!!! Please let me have my own opinion without all of you trying to prove me wrong. If I wanted FF I'd have it. You shoot what you want and I'll do the same. Why do some people on here think they no more than everyone else? Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're ignorant~ I'm out!

Don't leave Mike. You may actually learn something. "Equivelance" isn't a dirty word. It is a simple demonstratable way to compare across formats. Which is what YOU did in your original post. Just incorrectly. I don't care what you use. If you are happy with what you have then so be it. If you want to compare ff 2.8 and mft 2.8 and say they are the same thing........well......sorry. that is plain ignorant. If you want to be ignorant than feel free to try out cell phones with their 1.4 primes and 1" bridges with 2.8 zooms. You may be shocked to find they aren't equivelant.........Good luck man. Your gonna need it

@mike ronesiaDigital medium format is a smaller improvement in performance for many reasons:- less lens designs, and slower lenses.- 35MM FF is a stablished standard. From film age, the big names on the photography industry have been pushing the investment towards FF. This means that more investment goes on lens design, sensor design, etc. It's a sweetspot between willingness to pay and userbase.- Because cameras are used by humans, they require some ergonomics (size of the viewfinder, grip, etc) you can only benefit of sensor size reduction to a certain extent and micro 4/3 camera's and lenses aren't 2 times smaller.

Olympus/pana sell less than Sony, who sells more added value cameras, and sony also profits from m4/3 sensors. Very few people (the sigma CEO is one of them) realise about the competitive advantage Sony has on the photographic business.And this camera is the prove of this comprtitive advantage. It may be surpased (maybe the d750?) but the camera maker that surpases it, won't have the same margins as Sony has on this camera.

I just bought a G9 and went into M43 because I am tired of lurking around tons of weight. I had the A7RIII in my hand (a7III wasn’t yet available in the UK) and as soon as I had the G9 in my hand I was sold. AF is very good and overall package is perfect when travelling. My FZ1000 has had more use than my D810 and D800 over the past years simply because of weight. Plus I don’t understand people bragging on about the perfect sensor and super DR etc. A good photographer can capture the moment and tell a story, no matter if you have a film camera, old Nikon D70 or the latest and greatest. I still have a picture on the wall from my first move into digital from my D70. When People look at the picture on the wall, do they start a discussion about DR and sensor talk or look at the picture to be amazed.

Yes advanced in cameras and sensors are impossible tränt but do they make you a better photographer? That’s for you to decide. I have my opinion about it.

You are judging a weatherproof professional, expensive workhorse camera that aimes at the pro market like an A7riii on its appropriateness to produce holiday snapshot memories? Kidding?A pro earning his/her living with photography doesn't produce pictures for oneself, but for clients. Studio (strobe) product photography has nothing to do with storytelling or capturing a moment. Real Estate or architectural photography has nothing to do with holiday memory snapshots, car photography or high fashion/jewelry shootings or shooting the Olympics for high gloss magazines neither. There you need a reliable workhorse and size and weight does not matter. And try to professionally shoot a wedding for clients with your FZ1000 with its 1" sensor. And if your single SD card crashes... good luck with explaining to the bride :).

I'll suggest a friend of mine, who is photographer (http://www.eduardoperez.de/) to throw his 5D and Tilt-/Shift lenses away and switch to a G9 :) :).Have a nice day!

Hi Mike. You say "I brought up the money, because some photo snobs seem to think the only good camera is theirs of FF or one with a mirror"Well it was you starting this kind of discussion saying that the only good camera for yourself is your 4/3, because it is so light and small. If you drop in a bone, don't complain if the dogs go for it, so no reason to complain :).

And If one claimes to make a fortune with his gear (like you claimed a 150.000$ in a short period), one has to face that people watch your photos to see the stunning results to see if this guy knows what he is talking about or just a show off. And by your photos one can tell, ok - this guy really wouldn't improve with a better camera (with all respect, sorry...)

You say "I don't care about razor thin DOF because it is ugly". A large aperture is not only about one eye in focus. If you have a 50mm for a complete body shot and use 1.4, the whole person is in focus, but the background is not. have a good one!

Peter1976: some of the items you mention are better done with a G9 or an Em1.2 than a A7III. For static subjects or even subjects with some movement. As for pro's: there are quite a few professional users that use mFT camera's. I know of weddingphotographers and others that use it. You can find them on the mFT forum but there are also those that you can find on the internet. Suppose the A7III had all the specs it has but with an APS-c or mFT sensor. How would it affect the final outcome. Well of course it would affect it and no says it wouldn't. But in most cases the clients would not notice it t all. What makes a picture is depending on far more than just a sensor. But on gearfora like these people (some) just do not get it.BTW: I would be very hesitant to call any Sony cam a reliable workhorse. even this A7III and its striping due to the OSPDAF pixels is causing problems. Overheating, poor weathersealing to mention some other things are typical for Sony too. Not for mFT's..

Jorginho, I do not know one single pro that needs a HiRes mode to work for their clients. What for? Do you really think 30, 40 or 50MP from a FF is not enough? I never heard a single client asking for more resolution. And try to implement your HIRes mode in a studio strobe environment. Good luck.Better noise with a smaller sensor? Wrong. Besides that, which pro shoots non-moving objects with a high ISO? Better colour? What?? If you are shooting for a client, colours are adjusted in post, if neccessary. I never heard one client complaining about bad colours. Never ever. It is important to have a calibrated monitor and to integrate the right colour profile before printing. If you are talking about "pleasing" colours, then we are talking about individual taste (e.g. I love Fuji colours, but are they "neutral" in any way? no).AA-Filter? Who cares for what reasons? Pixel peepers? And if you care, the 5D s has no AA Filter.

It is clear you know very little about this subject. It is easy to find articles why HiRes mode like the ones found on the Oly Em1.2 and G9 are better. Even on dpreview you can find it and also why the noise is so much better and why the colours are better than 50 Mp Medium format sensors.And so for static subjects HiRes is given you better IQ. Better res. better colours, noise is on par with D850. No aliasing. You do not make colours out of nothing btw. The data needs to be there to make them as good as possible. HiRes hs no bayer array restrictions which is why the colours are better. There is more and better information available here.BTW: are you sure that Em1.2 cannot use strobes because I can tell you how to set it on my Em1.2. Isn't that something!

Jorginho, you seem to have very little knowledge of the demands of professional photographers or client needs... hiRes mode is a gimmick for the last 1% of quality that no one needs. Unless your hobby is to zoom in on your screen...As you have to use a tripod for hires mode anyway, you can take the same shot with any high end FF at lowest native ISO and have literaly no noise at all. Really, NO noise. Do you shoot professionally? If yes, did any client ever complain about a noisy ISO 100/64 shot from a ff camera? Or that the resolution is not high enough or that it lacks details? Or that the colours are "bad"? Sure not my dear, sure not....And of course any camera with a hot shoe can fire studio strobes. BUT in your beloved hi res mode you cannot use strobes. And using strobes for product, real estate, architecture, portraits shots is BASIC work for professionals. So, please, where do you see a relevant advantage of a hires mode (besides pixel-peeping and feeling wow :))?

If clients are important then I can tell you none of mine ever complained about the IQ of the pictures of the mFT cams. In fact they were ecstatic. about the pics I shot. Just viewing on the screen after the shot made them really happy. So if that is not the standard...But being on topic is difficult and strawman easy. Have fun with that.

don't get me wrong, each modern mft camera is quite capable in several ways, no doubt.But hires mode is really, really completely unneccessary for professionals, even more if you are doing a lot of studio strobe work (and of course ANY kind of moving subjects, like events, sports, whatsoever). I just saw that the oly is capable of using flash in hires mode, but with severe limitations (snc time 1/30 max, f8 max. etc) and as far as I can see only with Oly flash, not strobe (very complicated to integrate this in a studio strobe environment... not practicable for a daily basis).

Pros with their FF cameras do not have any problems with clients regarding:- resolution- noise- colour- aliasing

Jorginho, and do you think your clients are happy because of the hires mode ;)?What "clients" do you have, which business are you into? Are you earning your living from photography? Can you show some examples or link your website? I bet not ;).

If your 'clients' are "ecstatic" with the results shown on a mini screen on the back of your camera, well... they are probably just 'casual' private clients without high expectations, not industry clients. And for e.g. casual available light portraits, just any good mft or ff is decent enough (with the corresponding lens), no matter what the label on it says, then it is of course more about the photographers skills. Quite obvious.I used to work on both sides. And if a photographer would have shown me (as a client) photos on the camera LCD I woud have said "what the heck, do you expect me to judge the picture on this micky mouse sized LCD?"Besides that most of the studio guys I worked with tethered the shots on their laptop...

Maybe I’m too bored at the moment, but I actually read this particular conversation. As a bystander, loitering around the edge of this scene, you come off not particularly well.

I have seen, experienced, and witnessed professionals and enthusiasts alike. Their work appears in print, monitors, screen, and television. Their gear would shock you.

You truly can’t be so blinded or ignorant to recognize billboard campaigns shot with iPhones, or Marvel movies with action scenes shot on 5DMkIII’s. Or what about professional journalists who go into conflict zones with MFT cameras shooting stills and documentary footage.

Their are a plethora of articles from a myriad of sources one can find on the interwebs that show this to be true.

Yet, you claim to know what professionals are and use. You sir do not come off well at all in this conversation.

As for the A7III, it appears to be a very fine piece of kit and quite reasonably priced compared to most...

@Darkroom, I never denied that high end mft cameras are very capable. Especially for filming they are great tools (and for stills too).I war argumenting that gimmicks like hires modes in mft cameras are not relevant at all for pros and that a FF camera has advantages over mft that a lot of professionals just need. Look at the repair or replacement service that companies like Canon or Nikon offer for professionals compared to e.g. Panasonic, that more or less started some kind of such service just approx two years ago. Or the compatibility with different strobe setups.

And although smartphone footage appeared in movies, they don't replace a 'proper' movie camera. So what do you want to say? That each tool has its right to exist? No one would deny I guess...And billboard campaigns shot with a phone and are the exception to the rule. Nothing wrong with movie footage from a FF, a friend of mine shot a whole tv documentation with a 5D, absolutely fine. I never said anything different.

The ones that come off not particularly well in a forum are the ones that claim to make a fortune (150.000$, earning, not only revenue) with mediocre snapshots or that say that mft hires mode is somethin pros care of :) or that their 'clients' are 'ecstatic'(!!) when they see their photos on a little lcd screen but refuse to show some of their outstanding work, don't you think ;).Just my 5cent. Have a good one!

There is obviously a comprehension problem going on here, as clearly reflected in your diatribes. And since you seem to treat this posting comments like a day job or even a career, I’m just going to leave you with this...

My 10¢;

Mike whom you think you are sparing with has more likes in his initial post, than all of your responses collectively regrading this conversation. In fact he even has a few that have reached double digit likes. As of this post you have not a one, the closest is nine.

@darkroomMost of us have just moved on. We have seen this conversation dozens if not hundreds of times.

Mike established early on that he doesn't care what anyone says or what is written. He is going to see the world his own way. Good luck to him.

Here is how that tree works right now. Anybody that knows any better takes the sensible branch and avoids Mike. Anyone who doesn't know any better maybe eggs him on because they don't know any better. Then you maybe get a few stubborn people who continue to argue with Mike despite the fact he already established that he isn't listening to anyone else. Sad.......

@darkroomI am quoting you just because it is an easier way for me to respond."My apologies, "No reason to apologize. It is just a discussion

"I have this thing called life and the occasional work that I should address, forgive my lack of etiquette."You are fine. I try and read every post with a smile

"I didn’t even know that this conversation was referred to as a “tree”..."I don't know if the lingo is correct. All the little branches off an original source

"I am a little new around here. Also, I am not fond of bullies,"Well depending on how you want to read it they are both "bullies" . There are times they are both somewhat right but they clearly cannot communicate with each other

"especially when they are wrong..."

Hahahha.......There is a thread going on in open talk right now that is a pretty close parallel to this coneversation. One of the editors has the first response and he is dead on the money.after that you start having to filter through the wonkiness

If you read carefully, you could have realized that the tree developed and it wasn't only about Mikes post but also about what others Like yourself said (regarding e.g. highres Mode, billboard campaigns, conflict zones photography...). So a lot of in my opinion statements that i think were wrong and i responded. And instead of answering with arguments you say something like 'lalala, i have more likes than you'. It is a bit like a Trump would argument ;). Have a nice day my dear

@golfhov: you are absolutely right, communication is the key! And at least I try to discuss based on arguments and experience. And if one proves I am wrong I am absolutely fine with that :). Have a nice day!

I haven't touched an a7iii but based on previous experiences adapting Canon lenses won't be "bulletproof". Most work pleasantly well and now that they have added full feature functionality(except for FPS) the experience can be pretty good with most lenses. If you are expecting "bulletproof" you need to research the lenses you want to adapt with experiences from the a9 and a7riii. That may give you an indication of what you can expect.Which body are you coming from and why do you want to buy an a7iii if you aren't interested in ANY Sony glass?

I wouldn't call that new artifact "banding" because "banding" is a well know and notorious defect of all CMOS. Banding is unstable, noisy, relatively broad bands that inconsistently appear in very low flux images. Banding is usually horizontal but can be vertical.

This new artifact is sharply vertical "stripes" that are evidently caused by IC internal reflections from a very bright object within the frame. I doubt that it is visible in low flux images, though I wonder if it may surface in stacked astro images (e.g. a very bright star might supply the wayward light).

I wonder if these "stripes" are a terrible oversight (bug) by the chip designers? Maybe it will be quietly fixed in future batches? Might be wise to wait a year or so...

I did some Google research and found that type of artifact is much more widespread in Sony sensors than I was originally aware. It is documented in several models as far back as the A6000 and can manifest as horizontal as well as vertical stripes. It seems to always be associated with a very bright object in the frame (located above the artifacts). This seems to imply an internal IC light leak or more likely an electronic "bloom" (electrons spilling out of their container), which was very common with early and/or and high-QE CCDs.

It might be present in the other alpha cams but overlooked because it is elusive. Would be interesting if DPR devised a test to exaggerate the artifact in the A7-III, then subject other cams to that test (not just Sony).

The evidence suggest it is not truly fixable and there are suggestions it is made worse by the A7-III DSP sharpening. Maybe there will be a masking algorithm in future firmware upgrades (if any).

P.S. I just carefully examined images made with Nex-5/6, RX-1 and A-7 where that artifact would be expected (e.g. sun in frame) and cannot find any hint of it. None of those cams use BSI sensors. It has been suggested elsewhere that it is an artifact of BSI, so maybe that's true (at least for Sony).

I have seen this artifact on my NEX-6, but only when using a poorly designed lens that would allow incident light AROUND the focus group. I'll have to dig that lens out (Hoya/Tokina/Vivitar 100-300mm f/5, Minolta MD adapted to E-mount) and try it again. In this case, there would be a rather bright ghost in the image with stripes across it. I'm not sure if that's the same artifact being mentioned, but I've only ever seen something like it with that lens and when there's no lens mounted.

Crap+ is still crap. Clearly the same old cam with some sliders set to max.

@DPR this is a mostly educated crowd here. Testing of the high ISO feature which is pointless in itself (I d rather have a chip baseline ISO 20 or 50 @ 0db) is probably a smokescreen for the banding fault and if there is nothing to report, dont.

I look at this and see the A7 as slightly better at the same ISO, which means if you were trying to match depth of field you could use a lower ISO with a crop sensor and get a better result in terms of noise. That has been my experience as an A7 owner. I don’t know how tbcass is reaching their conclusion about 1+ stop. I would expect doubling the high ISO score would represent a 1 stop improvement. In the DXO link the A7 scores are less than double the D7500 (1483 vs 2248). So yes, the A7 and A7ii punch well below their weight in high ISO performance.

@ SharkWeek: I'm not denying that the A7 / A7ii might punch below their weight in high ISO performance for modern FF cameras, but they are still not "failing to surpass the best APS-C sensors", as wrote DPR. That statement is just plain wrong.

In the DXO comparison above, the A7Ii scores less than a stop better ISO than the D7500, so it performs worse at equivalent settings. The sports score doesn't tell the whole story though. If you go to measurements and compare DR, the D7500 beats the A7II even at the same ISO, so the DXO link supports DPR's claim that the A7II fails to surpass the best APS-C sensors.

Looking at th DPReview photos, the Sony A7ii is inferior to the top apsc sensors...just like they said. DPReview found this, as did Imaging Resource. A few FF fanboys refuse to accept reality....but they are laughable.

The point is that the D7500 will outperform the A7II if you take the same picture with the same depth of field. To surpass the D7500, the A7II needs to score more than a stop better because you need to stop down by one stop to match the DOF of the smaller sensor.

Yes, but if the sun shines brighter when taking the A7ii shot you can lower the ISO even more...! Apples to oranges, sorry... ;-)

Does a 50mm f1.4 lens become a 50mm f1.0 lens on APS-C?

Also, you don't need to stop down the FF cam to "match the DOF", you only need to go a bit closer to the subject. In fact, DOF is actually exactly the same on FF and APS-C at equal subject distance and aperture, but that's another story.

IMO DXO is more practical if you understand it because it takes subjectivity out of the question. The problem with either method is they aren't real world results the reflect the way you use the camera. They also don't reflect the type of noise and how easy it is to remove the noise while retaining details.

Sure, but tests shots taken under controlled lighting conditions are important when gathering data consistently, which in turn is essential when it comes to establishing (among other things) best practice when it comes to real-world shooting.

My point (which I'm sure you appreciate) is that it's wrong to dismiss tests like this as being irrelevant to real-world use of the camera. They can actually be extremely helpful when it comes to learning how to get the most out of the camera in day to day photography.

For example, if you shoot high-contrast landscapes, knowing the best way to expose your Raw files is extremely useful. If you do it correctly, using an ISO-invariant sensor like the one in the a7 III, you'd never need to bracket and blend exposures, or use a graduated ND filter ever again.

Having just had a lengthy hands on with a GH5 (12-60 non Leica lens), I was blown away (but not surprised) by the ergonomics, and the image quality from the test shots I took in the store and then viewed on my 15" MacBook Pro 2017. (I transferring them in a jiffy using a USB-C cable that I assume works at Thunderbolt 3 speeds assuming the GH5 has the chips built in, else it may have been working at USB 3.1 speeds, still pretty zippy.) I hate faffing with WiFi.If the Sony A7V or other future model had Panasonic's ergonomics, USB-C and flippy screen, or Panasonic would put a full frame sensor in a GH, life would be perfect and peachy.

osv,that is true&true canonspeak, and I will have none of that here! ;-)Having more functionality even if derived from other cameras while keeping what is already great about this is something Sony should strive for.

@MrTaikitsoGH5 is also a perfect camera for me, for multiple other reasons.However I don't want pany GH line to carry any bigger sensor than what it already got. Otherwise, all the great lenses will be not so great.If you really like bigger sensor, go for sony mate .. pany will take time to catchup with the competition on FF. where it shines its microfourthird standard and innovations in videos where nothing else can come anywhere closer.

If you need low light sensitivity go for GH5S, if you need shallower dof go for metabone speedbooster x.65 and add sigma 18-35 f/1.8 that ends up f/1.2 zoom lens.

and if you really need a FF sensor for any other reason, go for A7 III or any other according to your needs, if you need better grip put the ad-on one. These are all great cameras.

There is no perfect camera so the best you can do is choose the features that matter most to you and go with whatever works best. I will say that ergonomics is something that you can adapt to. Because I use Sony cameras I have no problems with the ergonomics. Admittedly ergonomics is low on my priority list because I can adapt to anything within reason.

Does it make sense to switch from Olympus OM-D E-M1 II + 12-100mm 4.0 PRO + 7-14mm 2.8 PRO + 17mm 1.2 PRO which I have, to new Sony A7 III + 16-35mm 2.8 GM or 12-24mm 4.0 G + 24-105mm 4.0 ? I will gain a (much?) better IQ but I will lose extra focal length (I do not intend to buy a 70-200mm lens because it is too heavy for me as I don't use tripod),

Stick to your em1.2 and do your back some good. The m43rd systems are perfect all round. If you of course you do a lot of high iso shooting past 3200 you will be better off with the a7 series but again you pay big$$$ on lenses and chiropractors.

Because I am aware of Olympus's noise level at higher ISO, I take practically all pictures at ISO 200, benefiting from an excellent stabilization. I am afraid of buying a heavier equipment for two reasons. First of all, it will be harder to take a sharp picture; the Sony A7 III has weaker IS, and the Fuji XT-3 probably will not have it at all, like the XT-2. Secondly, I might lose the pleasure of photographing I have today.As I look at the placement of buttons and knobs on the A7III, I have the impression that they were fixed in a random arrangement. And it's annoying to have this empty space on the left side of the viewfinder :)A7III has 'only' a better sensor...

While I appreciate the testing and the technical sophistication of many of these articles, much of the significance is lost on me. Yes, I know that there are many people in photography who love cameras for no other reason except to test the technical abilities of their equipment, and I do not mind. But I fear that DPR may be skewing coverage in their direction. With the more technical articles please include some summary review of why these reviews should matter to those of us who still want to know what difference these technical specs would make in the kind of images that most of us actually make...of sports, or people, or nature, etc. What kind of picture making would be affected with the enhanced abilities of some cameras? I know that at times you do remember to do this and I appreciate it. But there are other times when I wonder, "Why is this important or even useful ?"

In journalism, that’s called the “who gives a darn” factor except we don’t say “darn.” I second that thought though, this siramassing facts is only half the job. A story isn’t done until you’ve given readers guidance on how to use the info you’ve provided.

@tbcass - What a condescending statement. By what I have read on this forum, his questions are not necessarily meant for beginners.It seems that you have not graduated from being just being a gearhead.

"This is a gear website and it's what we want. There are beginner articles here you can read to learn more."

I'm not sure you've really understood the original point. The poster was asking for some connection between the more theoretical testing and its practical application. This does not seem to depend on the poster being a beginner, or even whether being a beginner in technical matters - he could be a very advanced and experienced photographer, but just not really all that interested in recondite technical jargon, or even consider it all that useful without clear practical reference. After all, one can fully understand the technicalities of sensors, and at the same time be a completely talentless photographer, in fact immersion in technical detail, may even blind someone to what actually counts in image making.

DPR is not for fetishists. DPR is for those who really care about camera tech. Because cameras are tools and it is essential to learn how to use them properly, realize the potential of each tool and understand how it actually works.It's so wonderful to see that despite all of the global spread of ignorance and intellectual degradation, we still have some places on the web not based entirely on touchy-feely artsy fairy tales, pseudo-tech mythology and pure BS.

For a few years now we've been recommending the Nikon D750 to enthusiasts and semi professionals needing the most reliable camera for the money. But it might finally be time to change that recommendation...

We've already posted lots of images from the Sony a7 III launch event, but now we've had plenty of time with the camera around our home base in Seattle. Check out our updated gallery to see the cherry blossoms at the University of Washington, historic coastal lighthouses and more.

At CP+ we sat down with executives from several major manufacturers. Among them was Kenji Tanaka, of Sony, who talked to us about the a7 III as well as its plans to attract more pro shooters – without ignoring APS-C and entry-level customers.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Hasselblad X1D-50c is a mirrorless medium format camera from one of the most famous camera brands of the 20th century. Following a series of feature-enhancing firmware updates we've been able to complete our review.

The LG G7 ThinQ is a flagship device with a dual camera that departs from the norm: rather than the usual tele/wide combo, it offers wide and super-wide angle lenses. While it doesn't produce class-leading image quality, it's a solid option if you favor wide-angle shooting.

The Fujifilm X-T100 is the company's least expensive X-series camera to include an electronic viewfinder. It shares most of its guts with the entry-level X-A5, including its hybrid AF system and 24MP sensor and, unfortunately, its 4K/15p video mode.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

Alex and Kathryn are photographers, friends and Tokyo residents who love exploring Japan's hidden cultural treasures. They each brought a Canon EOS M50 on a recent trip starting in bustling Tokyo and ending in the peaceful riverside town of Gujo Hachiman.

Canon's latest 70-200mm F4L comes with a five stops of image stabilization, a new coat of paint and impressive sharpness. We've been shooting with our copy for several weeks now - see how it stacks up in our sample gallery.

Special 4K and 6K Photo modes may be one of the most under-appreciated features on recent cameras. In this week's episode, Chris and Jordan take a closer look at these modes and explain why – and when – you'll be glad to have them on your camera.

Ten years ago this month Panasonic and Olympus announced a new concept called Micro Four Thirds. We're now on the brink of full-frame mirrorless from at least one major player, so perhaps it's a good time to take a look back at where it all started – and how far we've come.

At a high-profile launch event in New York, Samsung took the wraps off its next Note device. The Galaxy Note 9 borrows the S9+'s 12MP dual-aperture dual-cam, with OIS in both cameras and an emphasis on AI-enhanced shooting modes.

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

This week we take a look at one of the most unusual optics we've seen for quite a while. The Laowa 24mm F14 Macro Probe lens may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but as Chris and Jordan discover, it opens the door to some pretty cool photo opportunities.

GoPro has revealed its Q2 2018 financial results, boasting a massive 40% quarter-over-quarter revenue increase to $283 million and net loss of $32 million, which the company says is a 51% sequential improvement.